Get Adobe Flash player



The White County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, November 15, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were Gary Barbour, Dave Scott, Carol Stradling and Jerry Thompson. Also attending was Director Diann Weaver.

Visitors attending were: Ron McDermott, Carolyn Phebus, Dell E. Phebus, Darren S. Snodgrass, Kristina Hague, Dan Gruen, Mary Rynard, Michael Wagenbach, Charles R. Mellon, Irv Furrer and Debra Fornof.

The meeting was called to order by President Jerry Thompson and roll call was taken.

Director Weaver swore in all Board members and audience members.

Gary Barbour made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the August 23, 2001meeting, contingent upon corrections being made. Motion was seconded by Carol Stradling and carried unanimously.

Gary Barbour made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the September 20, 2001 meeting, contingent upon corrections being made. Motion was seconded by Carol Stradling and carried unanimously.

Gary Barbour made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the minutes of the September 27, 2001 meeting, contingent upon corrections being made. Motion was seconded by Carol Stradling and carried unanimously.

President Thompson asked, last meeting, October the 18th, is there anything there?

Director Weaver stated, I don’t think Carol has…

Carol Stradling stated, I’ve read the first half but, I have not read the second half.

President Thompson asked, Gary, look at those in December?

Carol Stradling stated, yes.

President Thompson stated, let's table those until the December meeting.

****


#2067 Mary Rynard; Requesting a 2’ separation between the home and the shed and a 4.5’ separation from the detached garage to allow the shed. Also, a 7’ front setback variance and a 4’ side setback variance to bring the house into compliance and a 2’ side setback variance, a 4.5’ separation from the home to bring the existing detached garage into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #31 in Maple Bend Subdivision. The property is located in Liberty Township at 7202 E. Maple Bend Court.


President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this variance? And you are?


Mary Rynard stated, Mary Rynard.


President Thompson asked, do you have any additional information to present to the Board other than what was read?


Mary Rynard stated, no, I just didn’t know that I needed a building permit for a shed.


President Thompson asked, Director Weaver, do you have any response from anyone?


Director Weaver stated, we did have a call from one of the neighbors asking about this request. I believe that we answered all of their questions, I don’t know that they are in attendance tonight. I do have an analysis here, the building inspector seen this shed when he was at an adjacent property, he knew that it was not meeting the setbacks. After further research, it was realized that there was no permit issued. The required setback for a shed from the side is 6’ to the foundation and must have a minimum separation of 6’ from any other structure. This property is in a flood hazard area but a shed of this size is not required DNR approval. I would also like to mention that, I did talk to our building inspector regarding this request. His feelings on this request were that the shed should meet the 6’ separation from the home due to the fact that the home does have windows in it. In order for it to be closer, according to fire codes, in order for it to be closer than 6’ it would need to, both structures will have to have firewalls installed with no windows in either structure. He also felt like it should either meet the 6’ separation from the garage or it should be attached to the garage and regarding the detached garage bringing that into compliance, he felt like that the garage should not be brought into compliance at least the separation from the house. He felt like if something should happen to this garage, it would be destroyed or damaged 50 percent or more, it should meet the 6’ setback requirement from the home.


President Thompson asked, Carol, Gary? We are glad to see you, we have our fourth member for this evening.


Director Weaver stated, this is Dave Scott.


President Thompson asked, Carol any questions for her?


Carol Stradling asked, Director Weaver, on a garage, the building inspector is saying that we shouldn’t allow it?


Director Weaver stated, should not bring it into compliance due to the fact that it is not meeting fire code regulations as it sets.


Carol Stradling stated, because it’s not needing compliance but, it has been there, probably before Mr. Anderson…


Director Weaver stated, right, and he understands that…


Carol Stradling stated, so there is no action that needs be taken on that but, you don’t bring it into compliance.


Director Weaver stated, that was his opinion, yes.


President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening?


Director Weaver stated, Dave, we are hearing #2067, the very first one.


President Thompson stated, let's give Dave a chance to look that over a little bit. Well, that pretty much takes us out of picture, right?


Director Weaver stated, well, we did ask to bring the home into compliance…


President Thompson stated, well, yes…


Carol Stradling asked, is the shed movable, portable?


Mary Rynard stated, well, it could probably be moved, it’s a pretty good size.


President Thompson asked, Carol…


Carol Stradling asked, the survey indicates that there is a proposed addition?


Director Weaver stated, yes, on the roadside…


Mary Rynard stated, we might do it so they went ahead and put it on there so we might as well do it at this meeting.


President Thompson asked, Dave, I know that it’s quick, do you have a concern about this? We have not given you much of a chance to look it over.


Carol Stradling asked, did Attorney Altman give any advice on if we approve this as close to where it is and there is no way that you can put a fire wall because there are windows, does that implicate the Board in any way?


Director Weaver stated, we did not discuss that.


Carol Stradling stated, one way or another.


Charlie Mellon stated, I think that it would be a good idea to have Director Weaver explain that to Scott since he just got here, what she told the rest of you.


Director Weaver stated, Dave, what I was explaining to them when you came in I spoke to the building inspector regarding this request and he had concerns about the shed. Fire codes require that the shed be at least 6’ from the home, if it’s closer than that it needs to, both structures need to have firewall and no windows. The home does have windows on this side so he felt like because of that, that it should meet the 6’ separation and he also felt like the separation from the garage that it should meet the 6’ there or should be attached to the garage. We asked for the detached garage to be brought into compliance and he advised against that as well. He felt like if this garage was damaged to 50 percent or more or destroyed that it should not be put back unless it was meeting the required fire code regulations.


Dave Scott asked, has this building been there awhile and…


Mary Rynard asked, the shed or the garage?


Dave Scott asked, and you’re just brining it into…


Director Weaver asked, the shed…


Dave Scott stated, has just been put in?


Director Weaver stated, yes, but, was put in without a permit, she wasn’t aware that she needed to have a permit.


Carol Stradling asked, so it’s a brand new shed, so there is no way that it can be grandfathered?


Director Weaver stated, yes.


President Thompson asked, what are the Board’s wishes? Do we want to act on this or would we like to check with our legal council on this matter? You did say that you thought that he was coming a little later?


Director Weaver stated, possibly, he was at another meeting this evening so depending on when that meeting gets over.


David Scott asked, that neighbor that I see here, do they own both properties?


Director Weaver stated, there are neighbors next to, they only own the one property. I guess we didn’t ask if there was anyone here opposed.


President Thompson stated, I did earlier, no one responded. Carol, what are you thoughts? How do you wish to handle it?


Carol Stradling stated, I guess one, if the Board is implicated in anyway. If there were a fire hazard there, then we acted against the advice of our building inspector, if there were a fire and something happened whether we are or not implicated, I wouldn’t be very comfortable with that. The probability of that happening is probably small, I don’t know if there is any way that we can safeguard that.


President Thompson asked, Gary?


Gary Barbour stated, I agree with where Carol stands at, especially when you talk about the fire laws.


President Thompson stated, I don’t know that I have been in this situation before. If we would table this we can’t say Attorney Altman is going to walk in, in the next 30 minutes, we really can’t readdress this or can we? We have never had that happen.


Gary Barbour asked, can we table it until we get legal council? That doesn’t necessarily put them to the next meeting then will it?


President Thompson stated, it would be open for yet this evening.


Director Weaver stated, table it until the end of the meeting and then if he’s still not here then we can table it until the next meeting.


President Thompson asked, is that fine with you ma’am if we…


Mary Rynard stated, yes, I just have to leave at 20 till 9.


President Thompson stated, all right, let's do that to be safe, if that’s fine with you and that way we won’t have to table it for another month, we think that we can still handle this, this evening. Let's move on and hopefully we can come back to this shortly.


The meeting was continued and this request will be addressed at the end of the meeting


President Thompson asked, back to our original variance, Mr. Altman hasn’t arrived so what is the Boards wishes on this tonight?

David Scott asked, is this, the only place on the lot that you have?

Mary Rynard stated, to put that…

David Scott asked, that you can put this?

Mary Rynard stated, well yes because, the septic is out on the backside and you can’t go any closer because you getting down, there is a hill down to the water. So yes, I don’t think that there is anywhere you can put it on the property.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any questions? I’m sorry, do you care to speak in favor or against?

Deborah Fornof stated, unfortunately, I guess.

President Thompson asked, your relationship to this property is?

Deborah Fornof stated, I’m right next door.

President Thompson asked, to the…

Deborah Fornof stated, to Mary, you should talk to, I don’t know if Dick is you husband…

Mary Rynard stated, we’re not married…

Deborah Fornof stated, okay, this is our summer home next to their residence. I elected to write this letter, I was going to send it and I decided to come down just to see what it’s like and to read my own letter. I’m here and with my husband Scott and myself and our interest and concerns involving this property at 7202 E. Maple Bend. Questions were raised while talking to Angie in Area Planning as I was being given misguided information as to one the existence of the several structures in question and two the number of violations resulting from these newly constructed structures. The only two buildings that would be exempt from the 1993 reads, included to force would be the garage and the original house structure without newly added 12’ x 22’ living space that was recently added and also is in violation. When I personally asked, I wrote the homeowner Dick, questions about his workmanship as this project was underway quote “they will not come out to check.” On the completion of this permanent structure as a matter of fact his new roof is very problematic and is still in need of constructional attention. As far as the shed we all find the perfect location to place our sheds and we all should have to remove or replace our sheds to follow code and as far as what Mary just said, she has a whole back yard space to put the shed. The deck, which was built by a prior owner around 1997, that has violations. The reason I’m here asking what reasons would substantiate justifiable grounds to warrant such a variance for this multiple number of violations and then to turn around and place the proposed addition on this survey showing another added building where the rights would be broken again. It is our belief that this Board’s intent is not to show discrimination between the year around resident and the summer timers.

President Thompson asked, do you have copies of that ma’am?

Deborah Fornof stated, I have a copy of that for you, yes.

President Thompson stated, we should have that on record.

Carol Stradling asked, so is there a building permit for the 12’ x 22’ addition?

Mary Rynard stated, yes, there is a building permit, there is nothing wrong with that, there is a permit and I got that, when I built the shed I didn’t realize that I had to have a permit but, yes for the sunroom there was a permit.

President Thompson asked, just a comment, would we be wise to hold off for legal council on this or do you feel comfortable proceeding?

David Scott asked, which way do you live from this property, North?

Deborah Fornof stated, I’m on lot #30, and the setback on the sunroom is not up to code.

Carol Stradling stated, I think that I would really like to check with our legal advisor.

President Thompson stated, I think too…

Carol Stradling stated, on the implications, I’m not even sure that it’s a possibility we would be implicated in a lawsuit or whatever, I have a feeling we would be anyway.

President Thompson stated, give the Director and our Attorney an opportunity to look into this a little further.

Director Weaver stated, yes.

David Scott asked, she is just wanting a variance for the shed or for this proposed property also, this 10’ x 10’.

Director Weaver stated, we advised her to put that on there, she mentioned to us that the neighbor might want to do that so we told her that if she did it now that it is something that she wouldn’t have to go through the variance process again later.

President Thompson asked, Gary, what are your thoughts?

Gary Barbour stated, I think that we should table it for legal council.

President Thompson stated, okay.

Gary Barbour stated, I’m not comfortable with…

President Thompson asked, does anyone care to put that in a form of a motion?

Carol Stradling stated, I move that we table this to the next meeting…

President Thompson asked, December 20th is that what you said earlier Director Weaver?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

Gary Barbour stated, I will second the motion.

President Thompson stated, it’s been moved and seconded that we table variance #2067 until the December 20, 2001 meeting.

Director Weaver asked, you brought your sign back correct?

Mary Rynard stated, yes.

Director Weaver stated, I need to go get that for you, you need to post that back on the property.

Mary Rynard stated, okay.

Carol Stradling stated, if there are no windows, well on the roadside of that, would you want to consider adding storage where you have your proposed addition instead of having living space you would put storage there?

Mary Rynard asked, you mean as opposed to having a shed?

Carol Stradling stated, as opposed to having a shed, get rid of the shed.

Mary Rynard stated, yes, my original intent was to do that to make like a mud, laundry and utility room because right now, I don’t have enough room in the house so I have the dryer out in the garage and the washer is in here. So that’s the original intent, if we build that and that’s cautionable that you said to go ahead and put that on there. They said as far as the sunroom and stuff I’m not sure what she means, I got a permit for that and all of that grandfather stuff, she said to add that on there.

Carol Stradling stated, if she adds on to the back, just a thought…

Mary Rynard stated, the only other choice that I would have at all…

Carol Stradling stated, but, if you don’t have windows there, you can put firewall there and firewall there and not, that’s just an option for you.

Mary Rynard stated, okay, if you built the room…

Carol Stradling stated, yes because, that’s still just too close if something in your garage would catch on fire, you house would go.

David Scott asked, that garage was already there, is that correct?

Mary Rynard stated, yes, the garage and all of that was already there they just when they were doing this, it was grandfathered in or whatever and if it burnt down, yes, the only thing that I really wanted was the shed and that’s the main thing.

President Thompson asked, Director Weaver, do you have anything for us?

Director Weaver stated, before you go, the date is changed, your sign is sitting in the back.

Mary Rynard stated, okay, thank you.

Deborah Fornof stated, so December the 20th?

Director Weaver stated, yes.

****


#2068 Dell Edward & Carolyn Ann Phebus, Owner; Unisite, Inc., Applicant; Requesting a special exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a communications tower in an A-1 zoning on 5.24 Acres. The property is located in Prairie Township on the South and West side of C.R. 375 E., just North of C.R. 1000 S.


President Thompson asked, do we have anyone here to represent this request?


Kristina Hague stated, I’m with Prudential Dickson Hughes Group. We’re located at 8777 Purdue Boulevard Suite 300, Indianapolis, IN. We’re here representing Unisite Incorporated and also with me is Darren Snodgrass with Prudential Dickson Hughes Group and we have a Unisite representative as well, Dan Gruen here. We are here requesting a special exception and permitted use agricultural district for wireless communications. If I can approach, you guys actually have quite a bit of information at the time but, I do have some more information in a booklet plus it’s something that is a lot of the duplicate that is comprised, if I can approach.


President Thompson stated, just one thing here…


Kristina Hague stated, oh, I’m sorry…


President Thompson asked, what you gave, present to the Board we keep, there is no tactful way of saying it…


Kristina Hague stated, that’s fine, you have a lot now, it’s just comprising here and there are actual photos in here…


President Thompson stated, just as long as you have a copy for yourself.


Kristina Hague stated, yes.


President Thompson stated, okay, and you’re presenting this for the record.


Kristina Hague stated, first I would just like to if I could, if I could start out with Prudential Dickson Hughes Group, we’re a full service commercial real-estate firm out of Indianapolis and site acquisition for telecommunications. We’re here, like I said we’re representing Unisite Incorporated and what I have given you before, you actually have gotten a lot of the information, site plan. What I put into this booklet we have site photos of the actual site so you can get a better feel of the surrounding area. What I would also like to do is talk to you about Unisite and what their purpose is in constructing this wireless communication facility. The area that we are looking at is an A-1, Agricultural district, the surrounding area is all agricultural. The first thing that we try to do when we try to find a site that Unisite is looking to get the, to build the actual construction, facility we’re looking at the minimal impact at least excuse me, let me start that over again. The least objectionable location for the actually facility is going to be both the requirements of the radio frequencies engineers as well as the community. Currently right now, and if you will look in this book on tab 9 which you guys, have been given these before these are radio frequency prorogation maps. What this is showing is currently, right now, Cingular is one in the market that’s very as far as color in those maps, you see green, yellow and red. Green being good, yellow and red being very larged up. Currently Cingular is the only one that has a variance it’s marginal in that area where other carriers have yet to come into that area but, will soon be looking at like, Unisite is a tower consolidator. They are building this tower, the proposed structure is a 300’ guide tower. It’s being proposed for 4 multiple carriers to fit multiple carriers on here so that’s the purpose on here and that obviously takes away and limits the number of towers within the area going up. What I have also enclosed in there, are the site photos which you guys have had on tab number 6, you are going to find actually site photos so you can get a better feel of the surroundings in that area. Like I had stated, it’s agricultural being used currently in use, corn fields and soybeans surrounding the area with also trees outlining to the West of the site location. In addition to what we have been, on tab 4 are findings of fact that we have put together and I know as a Board, you will have your own findings and fact that you need to answer. This might, our findings of fact might be able to utilize what you have and answer some of those as well. In addition, we have the 11” x 17” plans, you guys do have the larger site plan, it’s the actual certified survey and the actual site plans showing the actual tower elevation and how the tower would actually be constructed. You can see multiple carriers on that tower and with that I would like to at this time, we’re submitting our request for approval for a special exception.


Charlie Mellon asked, isn’t there two towers down there pretty close to that area already and a 300’ tower, is that going to bother the 150’ or 200’ towers that are down there?


Kristina Hague stated, if you will look on that map, there is actually showing it on, it’s on tab 9, I’m sorry look on the very last you will see it’s FCC where it’s listing all of the surrounding towers that are registered….


President Thompson asked, it’s….


Kristina Hague stated, it’s tab 9 and it is…


Carol Stradling stated, turn to tab 10 and then go back into tab 9 two pages…


Kristina Hague stated, yes, there you go. You are going to see the actual proposed tower and then you’re going to see the surrounding towers as well. The first one, like she said it’s the very last one on tab 9 you will see it says Lafayette BTF 11, that is our proposed site and then you have the surrounding registered towers near by.


Darren Snodgrass stated, I’m the project manager for Prudential. It won’t cause any interference for any other existing structures. In looking at this particular location, the only one, there are two that I can see that are close by that may consider them selves available for communications. I know off of the top of my head one is the Centennial which is way over here versus our site and the other one may be Ameritech wireless which is now I think in this area is Cingular. It use to be Ameritech but, I think that it has been changed over to Cingular Wireless at that point and time.


Charlie Mellon stated, I think Huseman would be the closest tower wouldn’t it President Thompson?


President Thompson stated, no…


Charlie Mellon stated, no…


President Thompson stated, no, I mean it’s in the area yes Charlie but, I think that there is one or two that is closer yet. There is one down Ashgrove Road.


Charlie Mellon stated, okay, I didn’t know about the one down South.


President Thompson stated, yes, but, yes, Huseman’s is relatively close yes.


Charlie Mellon stated, I was just interested in the height if it would make any difference. The other people are putting up those shorter ones and the higher one I thought that maybe it would get better reception or something.


Carol Stradling stated, there is a picture in here Charlie of what the reception is…


Charlie Mellon stated, okay…


Carol Stradling stated, at different height levels.


President Thompson asked, you say that it will be 4 other carriers?


Darren Snodgrass stated, there are spots for 4 additional…


Kristina Hague stated, carriers to go on in…


Darren Snodgrass stated, yes.


President Thompson asked, so you could go up to 4 individual companies. Is that what you’re saying?


Darren Snodgrass stated, correct.


Kristina Hague stated, right and those maps like what you’re seeing in the back is showing what Unisite has done. There are engineers that have done test to show the lapse in coverage from carriers and where they meet and how that will benefit them with the tower and the location that it is. On the site plan which is tab number 8, it’s A-3 of the site plan you can actually see the elevation of the tower showing with the 4 multiple carriers on there. It would be A-3 part of the site plan, the actual tower elevation.


President Thompson asked, how long, this Unisite, how long have you been in business?


Dan Gruen stated, I’m a construction manager with Unisite, we’re located in Tampa Florida, 4 ½ years. We’re also a subsidiary of America Tower Corporation.


President Thompson asked, would the name Horn Brothers Construction have any significance with you?


Dan Gruen stated, not to me, I do know them yes.


President Thompson stated, I have a tower on the property that my wife and I own. What concerns me even though I have a tower, now this is from the foreman, they had a contract to erect 40,000 towers in North America, Horn Brothers do, 40,000 towers, that’s a lot of towers. When are we saturated?


Dan Gruen stated, I understand…


Darren Snodgrass stated, it depends on the technology…


Dan Gruen stated, yes it really does and I don’t want to give a long drawn out answer, it really does depend on technology in use okay. We are not seeing what we would call 2 ½ or second in an half generation of cellular. Where you have the PCS, GSM, CDMA, different other types of technologies, digital technologies that you are hearing about now. The next generation we should call 3G, third generation will be more of what you’re hearing the stories about the interactive internet, being able to have a palm pilot light. I have here and do everything with it now the problem with that is that they are finding so far is capacity. It can only handle so many channels, so many calls and the more and more people that get these things the more and more need for structures. The structures will come down in height because what you have is you have basically a cell that is kind of a honey comb so to speak that connects to each other. As capacity increases the number of people that try to get on a certain change increases. They only have a limited number of channels per frequency. They have to reuse channels so what they have to do then, in order to be able to handle the capacity is literally what we call split the cell which brings, make it into two. Bring it down lower so that they are not conflicting with each other when it comes to the different channels so a long answer to your question is we will be seeing more and more structures now, will they be 200, 300 and 350’ structures? In the next probably 5 to 10 years probably not, they will probably all start coming down with these particular structures if we have to move antennas down we can. You’re going to start seeing people get on tops of buildings that are only 3 stories, or 4 stories tall and hiding antennas behind facade. That’s already happening in some of the urban areas because of the capacity issue. So I know for Horn Brothers, I know that Horn Brothers has a contract with Beckle Telecommunications who is the program manager for AT&T International. So whether it’s 40,000 I don’t know where it would be or how many it would be, I know we are in a situation right now where actually we have seen a slight decline in the number of new structures because we’re co-locating more all of the time. So that’s one of the things that we look at with Unisite, as Unisite brings to the table is they build a structure that is strategically located for a number of carriers. Then American Tower has a whole other arm that does nothing but, market these structures for the carrier. The carriers big key word right now is speed the market. They have to turn a profit to keep their Wall Street people happy and we all know what the tech stocks have been the last year. So in order to do that, they have to minimize their out, minimize their cost so that they can get on these co-locations a lot quicker. We will not, and I’m talking about the proliferation of towers, we will not construct this tower until we have an anchor tenant and that is more than, we are more than willing to make that as a commitment here this evening. The reason that we say that it because one, we don’t want empty towers in the air because it doesn’t do us any good. The other thing is, we want to show a commitment to the community that we’re not out here to just put them up. We do believe that there is need and we’re going to market but, we’re not going to put these things in the air until we have someone that needs them. Long winded answer huh?


President Thompson stated, well…


Dan Gruen stated, sorry about that…


President Thompson stated, no, that’s fine. Is there anyone here that is opposed to the variance this evening? Board?


David Scott asked, did you have opposition from next door?


Director Weaver stated, no, we have not received anything.


President Thompson asked, Board, do you have anything? If not, are we ready to vote?


Carol Stradling stated, I’m hoping that means that I don’t have to pay long distance when I’m calling from Delphi to Monticello.


Darren Snodgrass stated, so do we.


President Thompson asked, there will be carriers on this now?


Dan Gruen stated, we do not know at this point and time but, what we do know, Centennial is in the area, Cingular is also in the area. Cingular is looking at purchasing Centennial that is one of the things that is going on now, we have Verizon, Voice Streem, Sprint and Nextel. Five carriers that are actually working in the area, only one of which Cingular has any type of coverage…


Gary Barbour stated, that’s not good…


Dan Gruen stated, no, it’s not. I have Cingular, I roam on Centennial right now.


Director Weaver stated, Unisite does have other towers in the county correct?


Kristina Hague stated, they have one tower.


Director Weaver asked, one tower?


Dan Gruen stated, yes.


Kristina Hague stated, and it is actually located in, I just got the e-mail today to find out the exact address, State Road 16 at U.S. Highway 421, it’s a 238’ tower.


President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion?


David Scott asked, where was that at again?


Kristina Hague stated, the address that they are showing is for the site of State Road 16 at U.S. Highway 421.


David Scott asked, there is a tower there or there going to?


Darren Snodgrass stated, what we have on our database, we were able to pull up because we asked them what was in White County now. What they have is, they consider when they get a structure to the point it’s ready to go for building permits it a viable tower because it’s going to be marketed so it may very well be that, that structure is not up in the air.


President Thompson asked, is there any other discussion? Is the Board ready to vote? We’ll vote.


Director Weaver stated, I want to mention to you that a special exception is good for 1 year and you have to commence with that within 1 year or you will have to come back to the Board.


Darren Snodgrass stated, thank you very much, appreciate that.


President Thompson stated, while their voting, we’re out here in rural USA, 40,000 sounds like a lot of towers. Does that sound…


Darren Snodgrass stated, that doesn’t sound like a lot…


President Thompson asked, that’s not a big number to you people?


Darren Snodgrass stated, no, American Tower Corporation is probably the largest holder of towers in Canada, Mexico, United States and South America and total 20,000 and they have been in business for about 7 years or something like that but, that number doesn’t sound realistic at all.


David Scott asked, if you put up a tower in today’s technology, what is the range that your phone will work from that tower?


Darren Snodgrass stated, it’s on the height but, what do we say about 15 miles?


Dan Gruen stated, yes, the old cellular goes a little further because of the wavelengths. PCS like Sprint is a little narrower, when we would building out voice stream as a PCS carrier we were putting them out just for coverage only about 10 miles apart so it just depends, 10 to 15 miles.


Carol Stradling asked, can you put those things like on barn buildings?


Darren Snodgrass stated, yes.


Carol Stradling stated, some of those farms, we don’t have any silos out here but grain elevators…


Darren Snodgrass stated, yes, we have placed them on grain elevators.


With no further discussion the Board voted.


The Board finds the following:


1. That the property is properly zoned A-1, Agricultural.


2. That the lot is a lot of record and properly divided.


3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.


6. That the request is for a special exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a communications tower in an A-1 zoning on land situated in the Township of Prairie, County of White, State of Indiana and is described as follows: From the Southeast corner of Section 18, Township 25 North, Range 3 West, measure North 00°31’44” West, along the east line of said Section, 924.92 feet to the point of beginning of the land herein described; thence North 89°28’64” West, 550.26 feet; thence North 00°32’05” West, 415.25 feet to the South Eighth line of said Section; thence South 89°28’54” East, along said South Eighth line, 550.28 feet to the said East line; thence South 00°31’55” East, along said East line, 415.25 feet to the point of beginning, containing 5.24 Acres more or less.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Prairie Township on the South and West side of C.R. 375 E., just North of C.R. 1000 S.

7. That the special exception herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said special exception is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said special exception under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

The special exception was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.


****


#2069 Ronald J. McDermott; Requesting a 29’ front setback variance to enclose an existing patio and a 2’ South side setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on lot #5 in Amos Oak Crest 5th Addition. The property is located in Monon Township at 4366 Oak Crest Drive.


President Thompson asked, anyone here representing this variance?


Ronald McDermott was present to represent this request.


President Thompson asked, do you have additional information that for us tonight sir?


Ronald McDermott stated, no, not really, I think the contractor is the one who gave all of the information so I don’t think that I have anything to add.


President Thompson stated, all right, Director Weaver, any response from anyone?


Director Weaver stated, no, we have not received anything in the office, I will just go over my analysis real quick, he is wanting to enclose an existing patio and bring the house into compliance. The minimum setback requirements for a home in an L-1 zoning is 30’ on the front which in this situation is the water side, 20’ on the rear and the sides are a minimum 8’ with a sum total 18’.


President Thompson asked, does that sound right with you sir?


Ronald McDermott stated, yes, gosh I had all of the drawings, I didn’t think that I would need them but, he said that the old one and the new one would have been here, a copy.


Director Weaver stated, we have a copy of the survey showing…


President Thompson asked, yes, we have the official survey. You’re welcome to look at it but, it stays. No response from anyone?


Director Weaver stated, no, we have not received anything.


President Thompson asked, is there anyone here for or against the variance this evening? Comments from the Board?


Carol Stradling stated, when I look at your house, your house is kind of an “I” shaped.


Ronald McDermott stated, I guess that you could say that yes.


Carol Stradling stated, and I see the proposed addition, would be on the roadside of the house?


Ronald McDermott stated, coming out, yes.


Carol Stradling asked, so you’re not enclosing the porch on the lake side of the house?


Ronald McDermott stated, yes…


Carol Stradling asked, you are?


Ronald McDermott stated, but, the addition comes on the road side.


Director Weaver stated, he is also doing a room addition…


Ronald McDermott stated, but, there is an existing patio and we’re putting in a cathedral ceiling all of the way, the new addition, all of the way over the top of existing patio and making it an enclosed porch.


Carol Stradling asked, okay, so the existing lake side of the “I” will be enclosed?


Ronald McDermott stated, correct.


Carol Stradling asked, so the other side will also be enclosed?


Ronald McDermott stated, correct


President Thompson asked, does the Board have any questions? No one opposed to the variance? no response from any of the neighborhood?


Director Weaver stated, no.


President Thompson stated, if there is nothing else, is the Board ready to vote? We shall vote.


With no further discussion the Board voted.


The Board finds the following:


1. That the property is properly zoned L-1, Lake District


2. That the lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.


3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.


4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.


5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.


6. That the request is for a 29’ front setback variance to enclose an existing patio and a 2’ South side setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance with the White County Zoning Ordinance on Lot 5 in Amos Oak Crest Fifth Addition in Monon Township, White County, Indiana.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Monon Township at 4366 Oak Crest Drive.

7. That the variances herein authorized and granted are not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said variances are based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.10 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said variances under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

The variance was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.


Director Weaver stated, you do need to get a building permit.


Ronald McDermott stated, they will be here tomorrow.


****


#2070 Michael Wagenbach; Requesting a special exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a dog kennel on 1.056 Acres. The property is located in Princeton Township at 7450 W. 200 N.


President Thompson asked, you’re representing this request?

Michael Wagenbach stated, also here tonight is my father in law Irv Furrer which is owner of the property, of I & S Furrer Farms Incorporated and I also have just a small sheet that I would like to hand out.

President Thompson stated, that would be fine but, like I need to repeat, we keep, sounds mean but, we do.

Michael Wagenbach stated, it’s very brief so I will just let you read through that.

President Thompson stated, if you would like to take us through it, you’re welcome, it’s up to you.

Michael Wagenbach stated, okay, as far as, just three simple things just to express our goals and the goals of this kennel is to bring happiness to families, filling voids for our seniors who want pets and we also want to provide high health pets. Also to promote spaying and neutering of animals that will not be used for breeding purposes. Then benefits of White County is we would be collecting sales tax and also there would be receipt of sales from a region stretching from Gary to Indianapolis. We have a few dogs right now and I have already had some sales from as far away as Gary and as far South as Lafayette right now. Additional information is that we do have full support from our only neighbor and just the breeds that we are raising and want to raise. One final statement is that we believe that we have a moral obligation to be good stewards of our animals.

President Thompson asked, have we had any response from anyone?

Director Weaver stated, no we have not received anything.

President Thompson asked, is there anyone here opposed to the variance this evening? Questions or comments from the Board?

Director Weaver stated, my understanding is that, this is going in one of the existing buildings. Is that correct?

Michael Wagenbach stated, right, yes it is, no buildings at this time.

Carol Stradling asked, will this be like a breeding kennel or a boarding kennel?

Michael Wagenbach stated, a breeding kennel is our intention.

Carol Stradling asked, just a question, how do you promote spaying and neutering?

Michael Wagenbach stated, with our customers, that’s really how we would do that. At the time of the sale we go over the nutrition of the pet and also answering their questions. Usually, we promote spaying or neutering if they are not going to use it for breeding purposes.

Carol Stradling asked, you wouldn’t do that there, you would just refer them to the vet?

Michael Wagenbach stated, right, which, we are working with Dr. Hites out of the Monon area and usually we recommend him.

President Thompson asked, your background on yourself, what interests you in the pet business I guess?

Michael Wagenbach stated, okay, actually, just became interested in the pet business just about a year ago. There are people up North around the Milford area, which is North of Plymouth and we know them through relatives. They are having a successful business and I have always enjoyed working with pets. I raised coonhounds when I was younger and I enjoy working with people and especially when you watch them walk away with a big smile on their face ad they have something that is going to be their companion so I guess that’s my interest as far as my background. Education wise I have a BS degree from out of State University and MBA from Purdue University, which I just received this last summer and part of this kennel is to probably finance a little bit more education through Purdue or IU.

Carol Stradling asked, do you have representatives of these breeds currently or are these the breeds that you want to get in to. You have a lot…

Michael Wagenbach stated, right, the ones that I have listed we have representative of but, there are others that we do have an interest in.

President Thompson asked, does the Board have any questions? If there is nothing else, is the Board ready to vote?

With no further discussion the Board voted.

Director Weaver stated, again as I mentioned as with the cellular tower, that this is a special exception, you do have to commence within 1 year or you will have to come back for a second approval on this.

Michael Wagenbach stated, okay, thank you.

President Thompson asked, how many animals will you be able to house at one time?

Michael Wagenbach stated, it’s a 40’ x 50’ Quonset and we figure that we could have the capacity of up to 600 animals but, we don’t have connections of anything like that. We would have some intentions of having maybe up to 100 maybe.

The Board finds the following:

1. That the property is properly zoned A-1, Agricultural.

2. That the lot was an existing lot of record at the time of enactment of the ordinance, as defined in Section 2.114.

3. That the site plan survey provided shows the lot size, existing improvements and proposed improvements, see file for exhibit.

4. That no objectors were present at the meeting.

5. That proper notice was given by mail to adjoining property owners.

6. That the request is for a special exception as per Section 10.20, Article 10.2001 of the White County Zoning Ordinance to allow a dog kennel commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 27 North, Range 5 West in Princeton Township, White County, Indiana; thence east 335 feet to the point of beginning; thence east 200 feet; thence South 230 feet; thence west 200 feet; thence north 230 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.056 Acres.

COMMON DESCRIPTION: The property is located in Princeton Township at 7450 W. 200 N.

7. That the special exception herein authorized and granted is not so typical or recurrent in nature as to make typical or recurrent the formulation of a general regulation under an amendment of the ordinance for the above said condition or situation of the above said specific piece of property, and the Board additionally finds that the above said special exception is based on the findings of fact so made that are required to be made under the provisions of Section 10.20 of the White County Zoning Ordinance, said findings of fact support and create a fact situation that authorizes the above said special exception under the above said sections of the zoning ordinance.

The special exception was granted based on the findings of fact by a vote of 4 affirmative and 0 negative.

****

Director Weaver stated, I wanted to talk to the Board for a minute, if you remember Mr. Pollock had until today to get his property taken care of, cleaned up, the mobile home removed, he has removed the mobile home. Mr. Raines went out there today, said that the property has been cleaned up tremendously there is still a privacy fence on the property that has not removed and has not had a permit on it yet. He did however, come into the office today and inquire about getting a permit for this privacy fence, he did not submit the information for it but, did inquire. Mr. Raines said that there still are some vehicles sitting here and he feels like the majority of them are licensed now. There is a little bit of debris, he said that he is happy with the property as long as it remains in this condition and he continues to try to improve the condition that he is pleased. We were out there last month and at that time he had noticed the mobile home gone and he was making an effort and did succeed in getting that mobile home removed. I wanted to give the Board a report if we wanted to pursue this farther or however, decide that tonight, decide what our action should be.

Carol Stradling asked, so currently the only violation is the privacy fence, is it at a location that you can get a building permit for it or does it need a variance?

Director Weaver stated, no, I believe he can get the building permit from what I have seen when I have been at the property.

Carol Stradling asked, would it be appropriate to encourage him to get that building permit or get that down before the December meeting because, we have to deal with that December if it’s not taken care of and if he takes care of it.

President Thompson asked, you have been out that way Dave?

Dave Scott stated, no I haven’t but I will before the next meeting.

Director Weaver stated, I don’t think that I have anything else to bring up to the Board.

President Thompson asked, anyone? Motion to adjourn?

Carol Stradling made motion to adjourn.

Gary Barbour seconded the motion.

The meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Barbour, Secretary

Diann Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission